Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

The issue of paranoia is the supposed 'demon' of one kind of treatment that is, at this very moment and for centuries *before* conventional drugs ever existed, being used to successfully maintain health and cure ill-health in the most populous country on this planet.It is simply 3rd grade mentality to adopt a rather boorish closed mind. You are welcome to it but don't expect me or many others to join in.

So, we were much better off before conventional medicine - backed by reputable research - became the accepted norm? We had much higher life expectancies when alternative medicine, home remedies, untested/unresearched medicine and snake oil was the norm? Citations please?

As far as mentality goes - I won't justify that with a direct response, other than to say that my IQ (which has been tested with validity), degree and credentials put me at far greater than a third grade mentality. As far as having a closed mind - I believe that minds are like parachutes and function only when open - however, that does not mean that I blindly accept what others say, especially when it can place my health in jeopardy.

As far as you joining in - didn't ever expect you to - that is your choice.As far as many others joining in, I would suggest that you go back and read the responses your posts have received on this thread and others where you have posted - doesn't seem like too many are climbing all over each other to join you in your still unsupported claims and statements.

The issue of paranoia is the supposed 'demon' of one kind of treatment that is, at this very moment and for centuries *before* conventional drugs ever existed, being used to successfully maintain health and cure ill-health in the most populous country on this planet.It is simply 3rd grade mentality to adopt a rather boorish closed mind. You are welcome to it but don't expect me or many others to join in.

Honey I don't care and of course you're kinda being successful in upsetting the villagers, but you really are dense.

Silly threats and paranoia.This is the *internet*, a very very tiny part of it, and a forum with extremely few frequent posters, so clearly not the place where any real danger exists to anyone.You sound more like Mubarak when he warned millions on the streets of the 'external dangers from people telling you lies', and Gadafy saying exactly the same while his army mowed them down on the streets.

Get a grip.

No, I suggest that perhaps you need to get a grip. You are participating on a SUPPORT FORUM serving an audience with a life-threatening disease. "Real danger exists" if people are permitting to post unsubstaniated claims regarding behavior and treatments.

Further, you should understand that the "extremely few frequent posters" here care greatly about the integrity of the information it provides.

No, I suggest that perhaps you need to get a grip. You are participating on a SUPPORT FORUM serving an audience with a life-threatening disease. "Real danger exists" if people are permitting to post unsubstaniated claims regarding behavior and treatments.

Further, you should understand that the "extremely few frequent posters" here care greatly about the integrity of the information it provides.

1. This is a discussion forum, it is not a medical forum moderated or answered by qualified physicians2. It's the internet and open to all3. People are entitled to discuss any issue from various viewpoints

Do you not watch the news???

People are dying in order to obtain (let alone protect) simple freedom of expression.

1. This is a discussion forum, it is not a medical forum moderated or answered by qualified physicians2. It's the internet and open to all3. People are entitled to discuss any issue from various viewpoints

Do you not watch the news???

People are dying in order to obtain (let alone protect) simple freedom of expression.

Get a grip and a life.

Ah, yes. And with that, I've learned all about you that I need to know.

I suppose I'll go ahead and say, "it's been memorable" or something to that effect.

1. This is a discussion forum, it is not a medical forum moderated or answered by qualified physicians2. It's the internet and open to all3. People are entitled to discuss any issue from various viewpoints

Do you not watch the news???

People are dying in order to obtain (let alone protect) simple freedom of expression.

Get a grip and a life.

Yes this is a discussion forum; however, one of the things that gives this forum credibility is that unsubstantiated claims and/or claims that might cause harm to others are questioned by members (and many times by moderators) to protect members from "treatments" that may be harmful. While the Internet is open to all, this site is moderated - by skilled, experienced moderators - and they do have the option of giving warnings, time outs and even banning members -- based on the situation.

While people are entitled to discuss their viewpoints - when treatment advice or suggestions are given (such as supporting alternative or complementary medicines) it is usually protocol to provide reputable citations - I believe this is on one of the welcome threads.

Even in countries that recognize freedom of speech, one can still not yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

This is the *internet*, a very very tiny part of it, and a forum with extremely few frequent posters

It is the only really shit-hot active HIV forum in the world. Forums are generally minority events regardless. But don't make them unimportant. Plus some shit-hot people, including me (hehe), are here. We have saved lives, and improved lives, and alleviated extreme anxiety (<< testimonials available). That's enough for me.

People have a life outside HIV and there's a limit to how often they want to post/engage. And if you're right, don't matter if it's a single answer to a question or a thread of 500 posts.

On a technical note, athough there is a theoretical interaction between milk thistle and liver pathways used by ARVs, in life no notable interactions are seen (<< Ref: http://www.hiv-druginteractions.org, go check)

1. This is a discussion forum, it is not a medical forum moderated or answered by qualified physicians2. It's the internet and open to all3. People are entitled to discuss any issue from various viewpoints

Do you not watch the news???

People are dying in order to obtain (let alone protect) simple freedom of expression.

Get a grip and a life.

If this was a butterfly forum milk thistle would be a great topic of discussion, on a HIV forum not so much.

1. This is a discussion forum, it is not a medical forum moderated or answered by qualified physicians2. It's the internet and open to all3. People are entitled to discuss any issue from various viewpoints

Do you not watch the news???

People are dying in order to obtain (let alone protect) simple freedom of expression.

Get a grip and a life.

Wrong again Mary. People can and do get banned from this site, but you already knew that. People can be booted for their "freedom of expression" if they advocate denialism. Oh and you and your unique voice ain't allowed in the women's forum, LTS or Am I Infected. Wander into Am I with your wisdom and see what happens.

Wrong again Mary. People can and do get banned from this site, but you already knew that. People can be booted for their "freedom of expression" if they advocate denialism. Oh and you and your unique voice ain't allowed in the women's forum, LTS or Am I Infected. Wander into Am I with your wisdom and see what happens.

I have never been impressed with the killer 'herd mentality' and when it involves the same half dozen voices again and again, even less so.That it seeks to question the right of anyone to participate for the flimsiest of non-reasons it says more about *you*.Frankly, I couldn't give a toss if I was banned from this forum since it would just be a reflection on 'control' and 'power' in the hands of some pretty unseemly voices.

I have never been impressed with the killer 'herd mentality' and when it involves the same half dozen voices again and again, even less so.That it seeks to question the right of anyone to participate for the flimsiest of non-reasons it says more about *you*.Frankly, I couldn't give a toss if I was banned from this forum since it would just be a reflection on 'control' and 'power' in the hands of some pretty unseemly voices.

That's a good thing then - because I'm gratified to inform you that I've already hit the report button on you. You see...we not only care about the integrity of information here, we care about each other. I noticed in another thread here that you've already taken swipes at people like aztecan and Alanbama. Stuff like that ain't gonna stand.

And speaking of being unimpressed...it's occured to me that you're probably feeling a bit delighted with yourself, thinking you've gotten all of us paying attention to you and in some fizz. Well...not really. You haven't raised my blood pressure or anything exciting like that. I'm just sitting here in the bed with my laptop with a cup of excellent coffee. We've had loads of people of your stripe, but most of them were more interesting about it.

Matt, you're a new member here and in a very short time you have become embroiled in a number of variously acrimonious exchanges. From my reading they do not seem to lead to any progressive communication.

So I am suggesting that you step back a little and reconsider your approach to conversations here in the forums. There is a wealth of knowledge, support and experience to be shared here.

I can tell you from long experience here that when I see a new member getting involved in these kinds of embroilments early on, it often augurs a short lifespan as a member here.

So again, I urge you to ease up a bit and go with less testosteronics and more openness to listening to others. Humility is a good thing to have. Sometmies people confuse it with humiliation.

Hey Matt, I asked you something earlier in this thread (when were you dx'ed and what meds have you taken?), but maybe I needed to ask this basic question first. Why did you join this site and begin particpating? Did you not read any threads prior? I ask because you seem to have come in with no introduction of yourself, your experiences, or your knowledge to a site that's been established for many years with plenty of knowledgeable, experienced people who have pretty much already discussed nearly everything once ; and once here you began stating information that some of us have taken issue with. Rather than back your point of view up with verifible links and credentials, you've just gone off into sparring matches with several members.

Don't misunderstand, I happen to think that often new members are ganged up on and given a hard time; but your comments that HAART hasn't saved lives sounds so much like a denialist that it's no wonder so many people here are attacking your posts. (I'll never understand how prolonging someone's life and giving them back reasonable health after having an AIDS diagnosis doesn't make HAART life-saving. I'm just going to always think you're arguing with the wrong semantics on that issue )

So why are you here? What did you expect to get or give from joining this site? (It's obvious from your posting history so far that you intended to start off by only giving "information") Who are you and what are your credentials (ie experiences) to show that you know what you're talking about? I'm sure if we understood more about you, we might all find that we have more in common than you've led us to believe with your rocky start around here.

Perhaps you really need to start up an introduction thread about yourself, so you're not just a faceless new member with no past and no experience with which to back up your pronoucements. Thanks for any info you are willing to supply to help us get to know you better.

step back a little and reconsider your approach to conversations here in the forums.....when I see a new member getting involved in these kinds of embroilments early on, it often augurs a short lifespan as a member here.

.... ease up a bit and go with less testosteronics and more openness to listening to others.Just saying...

I have posted with respect and courtesy, and significant diplomacy. Particularly in response to some quite obvious goading unconnected with the subject of the thread.

A number of your established members have posted simple, short and sharp personal attacks that frankly would disgrace anyone.

So I suggest you revisit my posts and some of the responses and perhaps try to look at the content, rather than the mere fact that disagreements have ensued.

I firmly believe that with just a little more objectivity you will come to a different conclusion.

If not, then that is your remunerated prerogative, and so be it but I don't have the moral flexibility to change my opinions and come on side with the view of the loudest and crudest.

Rather than back your point of view up with verifible links and credentials, you've just gone off into sparring matches with several members.

That is factually incorrect.

I have talked about herbal remedies I personally have used in conjunction with ARVs. The forum rules indicate that is accepted so I suggest you re-read them. In any case, I have provided links to Hibiscus, and others provided links to Silymarin.

It is not me that has engaged or initiated 'sparring', so that is either down to your selective reading or some other fault.

Don't misunderstand, I happen to think that often new members are ganged up on and given a hard time;

That is a pretty big understatement.

Anyone even moderately confident in their personal views and choices would not launch the kind of attacks that 3 or 4 people here have.That is their, quite serious and unattractive, problem. Not mine and I certainly have no intention of taking ownership of it.

Who are you and what are your credentials (ie experiences) to show that you know what you're talking about?

I suggest then you read several posts where I give a virtual history of my experiences relating to HIV/AIDS going back the best part of 30 years. I have actually taken the trouble to read about several posting members here so that I don't make assumptions, or ask for information they have already given.

So, we were much better off before conventional medicine - backed by reputable research - became the accepted norm? We had much higher life expectancies when alternative medicine, home remedies, untested/unresearched medicine and snake oil was the norm?

I never suggested anything of the sort. I said that one form had worked well for centuries and is still the norm in the most populous country on earth - it actually operates alongside conventional western medicine. I did *not* say it was better. That is seriously disingenuous of you - stating an untruth and then requiring evidence of it.

I suggest then you read several posts where I give a virtual history of my experiences relating to HIV/AIDS going back the best part of 30 years. I have actually taken the trouble to read about several posting members here so that I don't make assumptions, or ask for information they have already given.

you must be mistaking this site for somewhere else that you are also posting

mmm well I was there and living it, brother.I was sitting in the office of Dr Joseph Sonnabend (know him, know the history???) in NYC in 1982 with my then partner, when you had barely got out of your teens

from " A positive, positive thread"

Quote

I am 53 and I consider myself fortunate not to have had to face being poz personally until 7 years ago.

Quote

Of course, and I am sure it is (or ought to be) appreciated that among some people new to this forum and indeed comparatively new to being poz (seven years is nothing I'm sure),

(btw, the snarky line "barely got out of your teens" sure reads like sparring with another member. LOL)

so you're 53 and been poz for 7 yrs. That's all you've told us about yourself. The info about your partner doesn't really say much cause I would never assume that just because you were in a certain doctor's office that that made either you or your partner HIV positive. While you did name-drop a few other times, that doesn't say much about you or your life. (there are plenty here who name-drop already and I don't believe a lot of those unverifiable tall-tales either. LOL)

Your comments do seem to be intriguing to say the least. I have to wonder how knowledgeable about HIV you really were in 1982 and yet still ended up testing poz all these years later. Not to mention that earlier you questioned someone else's time line, using the discovery date for HIV as 27 years ago, yet you seem to be implying here that your knowledge about HIV (from being in an office with Sonnabend) dates back 29 to 30 years. It seems your math has an issue too.

I don't know whether that is simply a typographic error on your part (did you really mean 22 years?) but what we now know as 'HIV' wasn't even discovered until 27 years ago at most, and testing was not generally available until barely 25 years ago, if that.

Please point me to any other posts where you have spoken about your experiences with HIV (like your meds, your counts, your health care work, your education on the subject, your activism or volunteerism, or you social service work), because I'm seeing no "virtual history" in the limited amount that you have posted.

Same goes for anything anyone here writes. What makes you think anyone can believe what anyone posts here?? You think the post count proves something? If you don't believe something, so be it. Why would I care, since I have no control over it?

Your comments do seem to be intriguing to say the least. I have to wonder how ........

As far as I know, none of us knew about 'HIV' in 1982. It wasn't until Gallo published papers on what Montagnier found that we heard about it.Sonnabend, however, was talking about a sexual transmissible agent *before* anyone else. He was, with two patients, the first to develop safer sex messages and he also talked about co-factors.

Anyway, whether you believe me or I believe you is just the way of life.

You can interrogate someone as much as you like - damn you could get a good job doing it! lol - but whether they feel obliged to play ball in your game is another thing altogether.

But I'm not losing any sleep over it, which reminds me time to hit the sack.

As far as I know, none of us knew about 'HIV' in 1982. It wasn't until Gallo published papers on what Montagnier found that we heard about it.Sonnabend, however, was talking about a sexual transmissible agent *before* anyone else. He was, with two patients, the first to develop safer sex messages and he also talked about co-factors.

You are correct: None of us knew about HIV itself in 1982, but some of us, including Joe Sonnabend, believed in 1982 that there was a sexual transmissible agent. I, too, knew Sonnabend and lived several blocks from his office in NYC's Greenwich Village. I also knew Michael Callen and Richard Berkowitz, his two patients who developed the safer-sex paradigm. You aren't the only one who was around then and is still here.

In the winter/spring of 1981-1982 I was attempting to edit for GMHC what would become the first publication on GRID (Gay-Related Immune Deficency). You remember GRID. It was to be released for Gay Pride in June 1982. Through a process of logical deduction, based on what was happening to all my friends, an intuitive leap, based on what I knew my friends and I were doing or not doing sexually, and on medical hypothesis, based on Sonnabend's work, I strongly believed that GRID was an STD. I couldn't prove it then, of course, but I wanted to present it at least as a possibility and wanted to suggest ways to diminish that possibility.

Sadly, my effort at presenting all of this was shut down. The then-president of GMHC, Paul Popham, insisted that "we can't tell people how to have sex." Popham and the rest of the board of directors--except for Larry Kramer--did not want to even discuss the single-agent theory until it had been proven scientifically. I resigned from the editorship. My friends and others thought I was a paranoid nut-case and called me a Cassandra and worse, including the ultimate gay anathema, "internalized homophobia."

Several crucial years in battling the pandemic were lost before GMHC finally came around to advocating safer-sex principles. The number of lives ended because of this head-in-the-sand attitude haunts me to this day, even though it's now obvious that so many in the first wave were already infected by 1981-82, including myself. The stubborn refusal to modify the principles of 1970s gay sexual liberation--as much as you want, as often as you want, however you want, wherever you want, with whomever you want--so valuable at one time, cost us dearly.

« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 02:26:57 AM by edfu »

Logged

"No one will ever be free so long as there are pestilences."--Albert Camus, "The Plague"

"Mankind can never be free until the last brick in the last church falls on the head of the last priest."--Voltaire

There were those of us on this side of the pond too facing exactly the same hostility.

The only difference is that in Sonnabend's case, and a view I agreed with which attracted quite hysterical hostility, that it was not simply a virus and that everyone contracting that virus would automatically go on to suffer the same health issues, but that 'HIV' responds most brutally and quickly in people whose immune systems are most damaged at the point of infection. That was proven in those early days in as many as 90% of the cases in gay men: exchanging toxic semen with astronomic numbers of individuals annually; major recreational drug use; massive use of poppers; multiple annual STI infections and multiple annual courses of immune lowering antibiotics and prophylactic use of antibiotics, on top of conventional health dangers such as smoking and alcohol. As well as that a very high percentage of those people also had a history of severe bowel disorders prior to that in the late 70s.All of this was heresy to many gay men who felt moral judgements were being made on their choices, rather than a reflection of how certain choices put stress on the body - irrespective of HIV - and that ill health was common, and would have continued to be common with that lifestyle even if 'HIV' never existed.

There were those of us on this side of the pond too facing exactly the same hostility.

The only difference is that in Sonnabend's case, and a view I agreed with which attracted quite hysterical hostility, that it was not simply a virus and that everyone contracting that virus would automatically go on to suffer the same health issues, but that 'HIV' responds most brutally and quickly in people whose immune systems are most damaged at the point of infection. That was proven in those early days in as many as 90% of the cases in gay men: exchanging toxic semen with astronomic numbers of individuals annually; major recreational drug use; massive use of poppers; multiple annual STI infections and multiple annual courses of immune lowering antibiotics and prophylactic use of antibiotics, on top of conventional health dangers such as smoking and alcohol. As well as that a very high percentage of those people also had a history of severe bowel disorders prior to that in the late 70s.All of this was heresy to many gay men who felt moral judgements were being made on their choices, rather than a reflection of how certain choices put stress on the body - irrespective of HIV - and that ill health was common, and would have continued to be common with that lifestyle even if 'HIV' never existed.

These things are not determining factors in how quickly your immune system will falter. The reason everyone is jumping on your case is you are making claims that are completely unbacked and passing them off as facts.

These things are not determining factors in how quickly your immune system will falter. The reason everyone is jumping on your case is you are making claims that are completely unbacked and passing them off as facts.

You need to have phrased the above as 'These things are not..[in my view]...' or '[I do not believe]..these things are....'What you happen to 'believe' is not a verifiable and indisputable 'fact' and so cannot be put across as such.

And with the greatest respect Hellraiser, I am not making any 'claims'. I am giving an opinion (one I have held for the best part of 30 years) and is shared by:1. Dr Joseph Sonnabend2. Professor Luc Montagnieras well as a host of other scientists, researchers, physicians and 1000s of individuals.

It is that 'HIV' will impact on someone whose immune system is already heavily compromised, more brutally and rapidly.That is actually fairly close to 'common sense' anyway. But in any case, I'm sure you are aware that the standard immune markers are affected by illness and, for example, take quite a dive when on antibiotics alone - even among negative people.That has been known for a very long time.

The fact that I happen to agree with the consistent view of one of the most famous HIV/AIDS physicians in the world - who is also a microbiologist as well as STI and general physician - and the primary discoverer of 'HIV' leaves me confident in my opinion that HIV/AIDS is not and never has been black and white in every human being.

If, as you say, people are 'coming down on me' for that, so be it. It's a free world (still?).

It is a bitter sadness to me that between 1971 when Colorado and Oregon repealed their sodomy laws and 1981 showing us the first* case reports of AIDS (then GRID) was but 10 years, and for me all that sex and fellowship must be construed as a political act of claiming the public and private space as ours. For it was, most of the time, highly illegal and from the medical orthodoxy's point of view an illness.

The theory about (then) GRID and drug use, multiple sexual partners, and unsafe sexual practices in the gay community was (mostly rightly) contested from the beginning by GMHC. And the stuff on CMV was wrong. But How to Have Sex In an Epidemic basically described the kernel of safer sex and remains a seminal text. You can read it here in facsimile: http://richardberkowitz.com/category/4-how-to-have-sex-in-an-epidemic. It opens with a statement of neutrality: we don't say don't have sex or do, but if you do....

Seminal might be slightly unfortunate here, but I mean it, they started something worldwide. Never let us forget it was started by a musician, doctor and a whore, and they were laughed at for saying what they said.

Obviously, HIV will impact on someone who's not looking after themselves, like any other condition, but that is not, in my book, something to become a moral benchmark, guide for political resistance, or indeed the essential nature of the condition (it's the HIV). Montagnier wasn't having the very fibres of his being repressed or making waves to create and demonstrate the conditions of freedom.

It's so damn sad that (a modicum of) equal rights and human recognition came with a big, sneaky pain in the backside.

@Matt39 - Fellow matt, I apologise for being short with you last night in another post.

- matt

* There were some earlier reports of AIDS-like conditions in women in northern American cities, many of them "gay women" and African-American, mostly injecting drug users, but you can't even find the abstracts online anymore.

Obviously, HIV will impact on someone who's not looking after themselves, like any other condition, but that is not, in my book, something to become a moral benchmark

Me neither. I didn't see it then, or now, as a 'moral' issue but a health choice issue. I will never tell someone not to get fucked up the arse bareback by 1000 different people, while on coke, sniffing poppers, and ingesting 100s of grams of antibiotics a year if that is there choice. But I will defend their right to make that choice with information on the consequences - whether or not 'HIV' existed.

I appreciate your comments and I welcome this whole discussion.I believe it can only be constructive.

I fully understand where you are coming from but that doesn't for one moment negate potential benefits of combining allopathic treatment (conventional western drug therapy) with efficacious herbal remedies.

Are we not all in favour of everyone making an intelligent and considered choice for themselves, without erecting straw bogeymen to knock down?

By the way, something I forgot to include in my response to your previous post about ARVs v Herbal Remedies (as if it is really one or the other anyway, which it is not), in which you said that your deciding factor was that 'ARVs save lives'. I'm afraid we do not know that either yet, or at all.If you look at the 20,000 cohort study published in the 'Lancet' in 2006, that submitted the outcomes in all cases of the first 10 years of combination therapy to scientific analysis and peer-review, the conclusion was stark and very disappointing:'"Virological response after starting HAART improved over calendar years, but such improvement has not translated into a decrease in mortality"So combination therapy has not yet shown it can save lives - the same rate of death was occurring if a little longer down the line than may have otherwise been the case.ARVs are still *not* a magic cure in any shape or form.

I know the conversation has moved on (back to Milk thistle!) but I think it is important to clarify a few things about this study for the benefit of others who browse these forums.

First, this is a reputable study and has been followed by many other reputable studies using the data maintained by the Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) Cohort Collaboration. Those papers include the ones showing that people who are able to get tcell counts up to 500 for a period have basically normal life expectancies which we have discussed at length in other threads.

Second, Matt39 has clearly misread the conclusion as stated in the abstract.

The abstract says (in the link he provided under the "methods" portion)

"The primary endpoints were the hazard ratios for AIDS and for death from all causes in the first year of HAART, which were estimated using Cox regression." (emphasis added)

The results section goes into more detail " Compared with 1998, adjusted hazard ratios for AIDS were 1·07 (95% CI 0·84—1·36) in 1995—96 and 1·35 (1·06—1·71) in 2002—03. Corresponding figures for death were 0·87 (0·56—1·36) and 0·96 (0·61—1·51)."

The abstract interpretation says: "Virological response after starting HAART improved over calendar years, but such improvement has not translated into a decrease in mortality."

So this study was looking at whether HAART was getting better at controlling death and AIDS in the first year after starting HAART. It was not looking at whether HAART was better than nothing. HAART saves many many lives -- this study does not dispute that. Indeed other studies based on the ART cohort data have shown that fact in great detail.

Instead, this limited study looks only to the years after HAART was introduced and finds that during the years 1996 to 2006 the drug therapies got better at controlling viral load for most people during the year that they start HAART, but didn't make any progress on saving the lives of people who started HAART too late and died during that crucial first year of treatment.

It is important to provide links to papers not only so that others can evaluate whether the paper is worthwhile, but also so they can see whether you have appropriately read the conclusions. Here. Matt39 misread the paper as comparing treatment with HAART to no treatment; the paper was actually about starting HAART when it was first introduced versus starting HAART 10 years later.

the drug therapies got better at controlling viral load for most people during the year that they start HAART, but didn't make any progress on saving the lives of people who started HAART too late and died during that crucial first year of treatment.

Yer, but there's a world of difference between people being diagnosed late eg CD4 200 or (considerably) less and being diagnosed with high CD4 counts. Plus the Americans, by virtue of the high proportion of injecting drug users without access to timely care in the US, skew the results. Take these people out, and the odds of health are greatly improved (applies to many cohort studies). << this is so far from the pros and cons of milk thistle.

Yer, but there's a world of difference between people being diagnosed late eg CD4 200 or (considerably) less and being diagnosed with high CD4 counts. Plus the Americans, by virtue of the high proportion of injecting drug users without access to timely care in the US, skew the results. Take these people out, and the odds of health are greatly improved (applies to many cohort studies). << this is so far from the pros and cons of milk thistle.

- matt

Yes -- for whatever reason some people start treatment so sick or so unable to be adherent that HAART does not save them. Whether late is used in the sense of tcell progression or some other basis is not really the controlling issue. The point of this study was that over its first 10 years HAART had gotten better at rapidly reducing viral loads, but not in rescuing those within a year of death when they started.

The main point of my post, of course, is that this was not a study of whether HAART works to save lives (it does) but of whether HAART had gotten better at doing so after its introduction. Since Matt39 had used his mistaken understanding of the results of the study in both this thread and others, I thought it would be useful to point out where his reading had accidentally gone off track.

The main point of my post, of course, is that this was not a study of whether HAART works to save lives (it does) but of whether HAART had gotten better at doing so after its introduction. Since Matt39 had used his mistaken understanding of the results of the study in both this thread and others, I thought it would be useful to point out where his reading had accidentally gone off track.

edit -- wrong word

You'll forgive me for saying that I simply don't agree with your interpretation.You can cut it any way you like, there are no hard consistent 'facts' to be interpreted from such a study, ie 'patient profile 'A' on HAART will live to x years, whereas patient profile 'B' will only live to y years, and patient 'C' will live a normal life span'I'm afraid that is wishful thinking, as is the erroneous conclusion that we have *any idea whatsoever* whether *anyone* of any kind of personal profile and age can expect a 'normal' life span. That is simply just guesswork.We have no way of knowing how long HAART maintains CD4 numbers or VL suppression. There is no way that can be know until a large enough number of people have passed a certain age/treatment years number.Everything else is simply projection.

You'll forgive me for saying that I simply don't agree with your interpretation.You can cut it any way you like, there are no hard consistent 'facts' to be interpreted from such a study, ie 'patient profile 'A' on HAART will live to x years, whereas patient profile 'B' will only live to y years, and patient 'C' will live a normal life span'I'm afraid that is wishful thinking, as is the erroneous conclusion that we have *any idea whatsoever* whether *anyone* of any kind of personal profile and age can expect a 'normal' life span. That is simply just guesswork.We have no way of knowing how long HAART maintains CD4 numbers or VL suppression. There is no way that can be know until a large enough number of people have passed a certain age/treatment years number.Everything else is simply projection.

Life expectancy calculations are projections.

And it is an error, although a common one, to say we don't have enough data. We have 15 years of experience of people on HAART constituting over a million life years of experience and demonstrating a reduction in mortality rates for people on HAART at a wide variety of ages. That is more than enough data to calculate rigourous and valid mortality tables and life expectancies. People will quibble about whether the data might get worse -- they do that with studies of the general population too (the latest is all the moaning about the potential for the obesity epidemic to roll back life expectancy gains). But the fact is that the data we have show huge gains to life expectancy from HAART, calculated using a rigourous, scientifically unexceptional approach.

In point of fact, the paper you cited does not support your point of view -- it is not even about what you thought it was about -- and you are not likely to find a paper that has gone through rigorous peer review that does support your view. That's because denalism doesn't generally survive peer review.

Like you, I sincerely hope that we all will benefit in the long term from our HAART therapy notwithstanding existing problems with it. If that is what you call 'denialism' then frankly you have me confused.However, to get back to that study.As with all studies without exception they are intended to give evidence to support or not a hoped-for outcome. That study was, to a large degree, a disappointment for the study authors and they make that plain. And it makes the case for ratcheting up of research into forms of 'HAART 2' they will give far better outcomes. Being prepared to face the evidence and with open eyes and not rose-tinted spectacles is crucial in all areas of ill-health and medicine, whether it be 'HIV/AIDS' or anything else.

Like you, I sincerely hope that we all will benefit in the long term from our HAART therapy notwithstanding existing problems with it. If that is what you call 'denialism' then frankly you have me confused.However, to get back to that study.As with all studies without exception they are intended to give evidence to support or not a hoped-for outcome. That study was, to a large degree, a disappointment for the study authors and they make that plain. And it makes the case for ratcheting up of research into forms of 'HAART 2' they will give far better outcomes. Being prepared to face the evidence and with open eyes and not rose-tinted spectacles is crucial in all areas of ill-health and medicine, whether it be 'HIV/AIDS' or anything else.

I personally don't think you're a denialist, I just think you're touting the unproven in the way of herbs/natural remedies as being similar or equivalent to HAART. At least from reading your posts this is the impression that I've gotten. HAART isn't perfect but it is the current best option.

I personally don't think you're a denialist, I just think you're touting the unproven in the way of herbs/natural remedies as being similar or equivalent to HAART. At least from reading your posts this is the impression that I've gotten. HAART isn't perfect but it is the current best option.

I don't tout herbal medicine or alternative remedies as either similar or equivalent. And I most definitely have not suggested the choice is or must be one or the other. Ultimately, the choice is down to every single individual and should be based on free access to the widest possible information.What I do believe is that for some people in some circumstances herbal or other remedies have a part to play.Large numbers of 'HIV+' people already use them successfully both in the lead up to HAART and in conjunction to HAART. That just happens to be a fact.That has served me well and others have shown that it serves them well too.But every single human being is unique and what works well for one wont necessarily work well for another - that goes for every form of medical treatment.

Let me give you an example:

Glutathione is the single most powerful anti-oxidant known to humankind. Oxidation, and oxidative stress, is known to be a major cause of reduced immune function - that's why it is talked about, in general health, so much. It is something that Professor Luc Montagnier has been banging on about since 1990 and increasingly so. He is in public record as saying that he believes that oxidative stress is a major factor in why some people with 'HIV' infection go on to become ill more quickly than others, and why some people - without it - appear to avoid illness for very long periods even when not on HAART.Gluthaione is naturally occurring in the body but with age, the body's ability to create it diminishes in *everyone*. Research has shown that in a large number of 'HIV+' people, there is a severe deficiency of Glutathione.

At the outset when I tested poz, I had my Glutahione levels tested and they were significantly lowered.So I chose to try ways of elevating them.

I had already discovered through research that it is extremely difficult to supplement the body's level of Glutathione directly by conventional oral supplementation - sadly, as with much oral supplementation the bulk of it is destroyed in the stomach. Even the 'highly-regarded' branded forms (extremely expensive usually $100 per month) haven't come out that well in tests either.

Given by IV they have proven to be much more successful but with the twin problems of (a) finding a qualified physician both trained and willing to administer it at the right level, and (b) the very high cost.

So, if I wanted to have any prospect of success I had to find another way.

That led me to reading about how people involved in weight-training use common supplements to try and cause the Liver to increase production of Glutathione, and I discovered it had also been used by people who were 'HIV+' and people also with aids-illnesses.

So I chose to try that myself, and I began a daily supplement of undenatured* whey protein, and non-essential amino acids such as N-acetylcysteine and Alpha Lipoic Acid. The reason I also take Silymarin is because that too assists in the process and these are all considered 'precursurs' for Glutathione production.

After doing the above for some three months, I began having my Glutahione levels checked every three months for a further 12 months, and they were elevated consistently.

I am not saying that this would be uniformly replicated for everyone or anyone but it did for me and my HIV doctor knew at all times exactly what I was doing.

And the above (apart from the Silymarin) none of those supplements were herbal and probably masses of people here have used them anyway if they are regular gym goers and use weights!

*most whey protein is 'denatured' ie treated at temperatures so high it is no longer possible to have the same interaction, though if you simply use if for weight-training purposes or non-Glutathione production it is totally fine.I have also read in many threads about people on HAART also use L-Tyrosene to improve mental focus and combat tiredness, with some success. I use it at a max of 500mg per day and I feel sharper with it.

In this study, while the narrative conclusion is that virological response after starting HAART has improved over the years, but this has not translated into a decrease in mortality, looking at the confidence intervals for AIDS or death happening in 1998 and 2003, the matter is strictly speaking undecidable. It is perfectly feasible that combo by 2003 was HUGELY protective. Real life seems to bear this out.

There have been subsequent publications, each showing a more optimistic picture in the developed world.

The ART-CC now has enough data to provide a risk calculator of AIDS/death by age, gender, CD4 count etc at time of starting combo and 6 months after. It is undoubtedly conservative because it uses retrospective data. Chances are almost certainly better on treatment than they say now. It is also unfortunate that, while you might look like a person described in the calculator by age, gender etc, you can't really say if the results will apply to you exactly.

But, in the generality, yes, I think we have a pretty good idea now about what combo can achieve, good and bad points.

In this study, while the narrative conclusion is that virological response after starting HAART has improved over the years, but this has not translated into a decrease in mortality, looking at the confidence intervals for AIDS or death happening in 1998 and 2003, the matter is strictly speaking undecidable.

Would it not be more accurate to state" this has not translated into a decrease in mortality after starting HAART"?

That is not the same as a comparison of mortality with and without HAART, which is the comparison Matt39 read into this study. (He said "So combination therapy has not yet shown it can save lives -" This would require a comparison of those starting HAART with those who did not as opposed to a study which compared people starting HAART at different points in time.)

The evidence, scientific and practical, is in favour of concluding combo stops people dying. It's a fig ina pig to say otherwise. How long for? is a good question, but I reckon, f you start in good time, it's long enough. Long enough to eg get life insurance in the UK at a modest premium (under favourable circumstances, ie you have supressed viral load, reasonably high CD4 count, don't shoot up and didn't start treatment late). Long enough to need a pension.

The evidence, scientific and practical, is in favour of concluding combo stops people dying. It's a fig ina pig to say otherwise. How long for? is a good question, but I reckon, f you start in good time, it's long enough. Long enough to eg get life insurance in the UK at a modest premium (under favourable circumstances, ie you have supressed viral load, reasonably high CD4 count, don't shoot up and didn't start treatment late). Long enough to need a pension.

That will do me.

- matt

You are, as always, a very wise man Matt.

Will HIV still get me in the end?? Perhaps, but in the meantime, I am getting to watch my grandkids grow up -- without HAART, I probably never would have even met my fourth one -- sweet little Kaitlyn. So, folks can pick their nits on details -- but I know HAART saves lives -- and enriches others.

It certainly doesn't mean that Clint Walters of the UK, (and a large number of men in similar circumstances) who had been on HAART for most of his adult life, would or would not have dropped stone dead of heart failure at 31 if he had been on combined treatment. But he did drop stone dead of heart failure one spring Sunday afternoon in 2010 none the less.

Touché, but wrong in my book, there's loads of research on ARV outcomes. The research on this is much and sound. As with all aggregated data on risk, you can't tell if it applies to you personally. It might help alleviate anxiety though, to know eg ARVs reduce your risk of illness (including heart attack) and death etc in general, and perhaps, typically, by how much.

A colleague's daughter dropped dead at 21 of a heart attack, not HIV+, not on any ARVs, so I don't see what evoking the ghost of Clint achieves. Everyone can find an exceptional event.

The milk thistle remark was an attempt at humour, since this thread is about milk thistle and it's gone off-topic onto final outcomes. There you go. Internet is a hard place to be humourous I guess. (<< Soz to the people looking for info on milk thistle)

I am wise to the effects of long-term therapy, and long-term HIV infection. It's a matter that concerns me daily. But I am not gonna over-egg the situation by agreeing we know nothing about the long-term benefits, yes mostly benefits, of ARVs. The data doesn't support making an omlette out of the uncertainties at present.

Successful HCV eradication and inhibition of HIV replication by intravenous silibinin in an HIV–HCV coinfected patientwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20709593AbstractIntroduction: The efficacy of antiviral therapy with pegylated interferon (PEGIFN) plus ribavirin (RBV) in patients with HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection is limited. Intravenous silibinin (ivSIL), a milk thistle extract with proven antiviral effects represents a novel therapeutic strategy for virological nonresponders.Methods: We report a case of an HIV–HCV coinfected patient, who has not responded to a prior course of PEGIFN-α2a (180 μg/week/s.c.) and RBV (1000 mg/day/p.o.). Testing for IL-28β small nucleotid polymorphism revealed the nonfavourable genotype T/T. Antiretroviral therapy was not prescribed because the patients presented with well-preserved CD4+ cell counts and low HIV-RNA levels. She received retreatment with ivSIL for two weeks followed by PEGIFN/RBV combination therapy starting at week 1.Results: After 2 weeks of ivSIL therapy both HCV-RNA and HIV-RNA become undetectable. On ivSIL monotherapy we noticed a trend towards an increase of CD4+ cell counts and a decrease of HIV-RNA. After 16 weeks PEGIFN + RBV was discontinued due to patients wish because of adverse events. HCV-RNA was still negative 24 weeks after cessation of therapy, while HIV-RNA returned to baseline levels.Conclusion: ivSIL may represent a potential treatment option for retreatment of HIV–HCV coinfected patients nonresponding to PEGIFN + RBV combination therapy. Further investigations on the possible beneficial effects of ivSIL on CD4+ cell counts and HIV-RNA levels are necessary.

Now the intravenous compound is a derivative of silibinin, for solubility; so is it or the silymarin stronger? The exact opposite - their effects are complementary:

Quote

Inhibition of HIV by Legalon-SIL is independent of its effect on cellular metabolism.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24418542Abstract: In this report, we further characterized the effects of silibinin (SbN), derived from milk thistle extract, and Legalon-SIL (SIL), a water-soluble derivative of SbN, on T cell metabolism and HIV infection. We assessed the effects of SbN and SIL on peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and CEM-T4 cells in terms of cellular growth, ATP content, metabolism, and HIV infection. SIL and SbN caused a rapid and reversible (upon removal) decrease in cellular ATP levels, which was associated with suppression of mitochondrial respiration and glycolysis. SbN, but not SIL inhibited glucose uptake. Exposure of T cells to SIL (but not SbN or metabolic inhibitors) during virus adsorption blocked HIV infection. Thus, both SbN and SIL rapidly perturb T cell metabolism in vitro, which may account for its anti-inflammatory and anti-proliferative effects that arise with prolonged exposure of cells. However, the metabolic effects are not involved in SIL's unique ability to block HIV entry.

So it is possible that there is an even more powerful combo than what they used on the Viennese patient. IM/subcutaneous might also be an improvement by providing some delayed release, as well as being less unsightly and suitable for home administration (cf enfurtivide). A derivative, esterified with a medium-chain fatty acid could be make injections less frequent yet.The target of silibinin also happens to be NF-kb, decreasing proliferation. So is it all about immune deactivation? Well it's what happens in vitro:

Quote

Silibinin Inhibits HIV-1 Infection by Reducing Cellular Activation and Proliferationhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404953/Abstract: Purified silymarin-derived natural products from the milk thistle plant (Silybum marianum) block hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and inhibit T cell proliferation in vitro. An intravenous formulation of silibinin (SIL), a major component of silymarin, displays anti-HCV effects in humans and also inhibits T-cell proliferation in vitro. We show that SIL inhibited replication of HIV-1 in TZM-bl cells, PBMCs, and CEM cells in vitro. SIL suppression of HIV-1 coincided with dose-dependent reductions in actively proliferating CD19+, CD4+, and CD8+ cells, resulting in fewer CD4+ T cells expressing the HIV-1 co-receptors CXCR4 and CCR5. SIL inhibition of T-cell growth was not due to cytotoxicity measured by cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, or necrosis. SIL also blocked induction of the activation markers CD38, HLA-DR, Ki67, and CCR5 on CD4+ T cells. The data suggest that SIL attenuated cellular functions involved in T-cell activation, proliferation, and HIV-1 infection. Silymarin-derived compounds provide cytoprotection by suppressing virus infection, immune activation, and inflammation, and as such may be relevant for both HIV mono-infected and HIV/HCV co-infected subjects.

HIV-Exposed Seronegative Commercial Sex Workers Show a Quiescent Phenotype in the CD4+ T Cell Compartment and Reduced Expression of HIV-Dependent Host Factorshttp://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/202/Supplement_3/S339.full.pdfAbstract: Studies of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–exposed seronegative individuals are crucial to inform vaccine design. In the present study we demonstrated that HIV-exposed seronegative commercial sex workers produce lower levels of proinflammatory cytokines at baseline than HIV-negative control subjects. We also showed that CD4+ T cells of HIV-exposed seronegative commercial sex workers have a characteristically lower level of gene expression that can be seen in differentially expressed genes and systems crucial for HIV replication, such as the T cell receptor pathway and previously identiﬁed HIV dependency factors. This apparent lowered activation results in a phenomenon we term “immune quiescence,” which may contribute to host resistance to HIV.

Over the last 12 years i have experimented with probably 40 different supplements in order to manage side effects from pharmaceuticals, out of those about ten of them did not seem to offer me any real benefits. I am still currently using 26 different supplements to effectively manage all 13 side effects due to pharmaceuticals. In 2003 my cd4 was about 200 and i finally went on my first HAART combo which was Zerit, Epivir and Sustiva. Unfortunately i also had Hep B and within 2 weeks of being on the combo i had extreme pain in my liver. Because of the low cd4 count i was to scared to discontinue HAART but 30 days in i had to discontinue under extreme pain and suffering. In desperation i decided to try milk thistle in hopes that using it in conjuction with HAART would allow me to maintain adherence. Unfortunately the pain came back again but i did not give up. This time i had read about a new version of milk thistle that was bound to phosphatidvcholine and decided to use it in conjuction with HAART and was thouroghly suprised and happy that the pain totally went away and i was able to sucessfully continue the Zerit, Epivir and Sustiva combo. Thank god milk thistle/phosphatidycholine was a huge success for me or i might not have lived to talk about it.